Readers' comments

I absolutely despair for the US political system when I read comments such as those from Sue Crane. When are Americans ever going to learn that, to preside over the world's most important nation, you simply cannot be 'the guy next door' or 'one of us'. That is how George W Bush won and look where it got America. In fact the only difference between Bush and Palin is that she says the same thing a bit more eloquently and can actually give a speech. HOw many more mistakes before you learn that it takes an extraordinary person to run the US???

Blake Hudson acknowledges that he was incorrect when stating Barack Obama's position on the Estate Tax, but that his main point remains valid. I read his first letter as being less about estate taxes, mentioned in the article only as a one sentence illustration of one of several issues where John McCain has flip-flopped, and more an unjustified slam on Mr. Obama. However, if Mr. Hudson thinks John McCain is more sympathetic to his point of view, presumably that all estate taxes should be repealed, McCain is a very recent convert, as noted in the Economist article . Two years ago McCain's position was remarkably similar to that of Mr. Obama's. In 2005, the Club for Growth ran ads in New Hampshire claiming McCain wanted to “keep the Death Tax”, at a time when McCain also wanted to raise the exemption, just as Obama does today. McCain was opposed to a total repeal due to “the long term fiscal implications”, - deficits. I think we can safely say his conversion is one of political expediency. To Mr. Hudson's argument that estate taxes threaten the protection of environmentally sensitive lands: If indeed the main concern of landowners, and in turn their heirs, is preservation of environmentally sensitive lands, then perhaps the use of a conservation easement would be an option? It would protect the land in perpetuity, and provide tax relief, while allowing the continued ownership, use and stewardship by the family.

Conservation easements through either donation or sale to a trust or conservation fund may be available, but many fail to realize that these options presume a level of sophistication on the part of the owners of the land. Many landowners may be rural Americans without access to information or education on this topic, at least until its too late (someone dies and the tax is owed immediately). Also, these people may be, in the words of the Economist, "rich" in the sense that they have land they could sell, but they often maintain a lower middle class revenue stream which can, at least for a time, constrain estate planning efforts due to the costs involved.

Aside from these "information" issues, there are some practical concerns. Selling conservation rights or establishing an easement may create two problems (at first thought): a) there are not always readily available purchasers before (once one receives knowledge of this option) or within the time after someone's death that tax payment is required - especially in rural areas; and b) you give up a significant ability to direct the conservation activities on your own land in the way you see best (thus forfeiting a "stick" in the "bundle of private property rights"), while still being required to pay a portion, or perhaps even all or more, of the money you gained from the sale back to the government in the form of estate taxes. Thus you are left having the same amount of money as you had before, but having given up some of your property rights. Many conservation trusts are small scale and it may be difficult to find a buyer who can afford to purchase the conservation rights on 1,000 acres or more. Of course, there may be reasonable answers to these concerns as well.

Many, like myself, would like to do something positive with the land we have, such as restoration of traditional ecosystems, establishment of habitat conservation plans and mitigation banks for endangered or threatened species, continued timber operations (consistent with management for endangered species) for the purposes of ethanol production or extracting lignin for the purpose of generating biodegradable plastics (as an alternative to foreign oil - you can fill a plastic bottle 1/3 full with the oil used to make it), using standing timber to meet carbon sequestration goals to fight climate change, protection of various other ecosystem services, and on and on. Even if I could match up our conservation goals with a conservation fund which would pursue all of these goals, we would have been divested of our rights to choose and influence these decisions - not because we were born rich and have been stockpiling wealth, but merely because of the fact that we happened into ownership. I would prefer not to be divested of that freedom for no fault of our own, especially when all we have done is exercised our ownership through hard work and responsible management. And as our level of knowledge grows, we would like to continue to pursue creative environmentally responsible conservation measures. Conservation funds/managers should not be the only ones who can afford to exercise such freedom.